Hearthpwn

for 7 mana but requires 9 mana

... i'll rest my case.

I guess to Transform all the Corrupted Bloods from Hakkar, the Soulflayer, so only your opponent dies and not you yourself?

Also noteworthy, it let's you ignore taunt, which sometimes screwed with your supercollider play.

But I agree with the overall sentiment that warrior has so much good removal, it is a very contested slot. Let's see how this plays out.

EDIT: And you can target your own minions? Does that make any Sense? Linecracker?

Quote from jsager99 >

Depending on what the shaman Galakrond effect is, a quest deck which doubles battlecries to invoke and control, then plays Galakrond in the late game (with a double battlecry) could be viable. If you play this before transitioning to Galakrond, you can unleash two devastations (e.g. 10 to their face with 10 heal). Then, after transitioning to Galakrond, you can play Shudderwock to activate another devastation and re-trigger the Galakrond battlecry. 

 You can't double up on the devestation, since you have to be galakrond, meaning your hero power is replaced by galakronds hero power. I mean, you could hold back on your Quest completion until you've played galakrond, to replace his hero power by the double battlycry HP. But that sounds like a lot of trouble.

Quote from BrokenCycle >>

Quote from Inzan1ty >>

3 Mana Swipe, where your face takes damage from attacking.

 And your own minions also get hit.

It's not that great but you have to run it in galakrond anyway, so it will see play.

 

 Yeah all people saying "3 Mana Swipe" miss the "damage you own minions" part. As the Galakrond deck (presumably) wants to be aggro / midrange, you want to be ahead on the board at all times. Damaging you own minions is.. well.. not ideal. apart from maybe Frothing Berserker.

But since there are only 4 invoke cards accessible to each class, you just include all of them I guess?

Quote from GrumpyMonkie >>

Strictly better than the hunter card which summon 5/5 rush minion with twinspell, and that one saw play.

Very good.

 No it's not strictly better. It's a lot worse when you have a only High-Impact minions on your side, and you have to transform one.

Also, a lot of power form Unleash the Beast comes from the synergy with Zul'jin, because it is a spell. The value from that synergy is what makes Unleash the Beast playable right now.

But I agree with you that i think this card is very good and will see play in Lackey / Token decks!

Quote from TardisGreen >>

Quote from tekkenpro >>

Quote from Kill_Dash_Nine >>

It's playable at 4 mana. I don't think people really understand what meta defining actually means. It means a card that an entire deck will be around and people will need to play decks that counter it. This is not even close. First it only effects dragons in your deck and not hand. It's effect is going to be slow unless your deck has lots of draw. Even then for the stats it's playable but not great. Will mainly see play for combo decks. I think it will be too slow in the meta. If the card said hand and deck it would be a playable but far from an auto include in dragon decks.

 No.

Meta-defining means: Define the meta. When dragon-decks are garbage, and by printing this card, all of a sudden everyone plays dragon decks, this card is meta-defining. The meta is the state of the game, which decks are played and which are not.

What you described is a build-around card, like C'Thun. There is a single card, usually powerful, so that you build you deck around it. But if no one plays said deck, it is not meta-defining.

Usually, powerful build-around cards happen to be meta-defining, but arent't necessarily. Frizz Kindleroost seems to be both.

Everybody is playing Dragon decks now?  Seems like you are putting the cart before the horse.

C'thun decks "defined the meta" at the scrub ranks for about one week.  The competitive players worked out there were much better options immediately.  The lemmings took a bit longer to figure it out.  But C'thun did NOT define the meta.

 Maybe you should read my comment before commenting.

I have not said that anyone would play dragon decks. I have not said that C'thun was meta defining.

I have just described the poll, and what meta-defining means. It mean's, that according to this poll, 71.8 % of people think, that because of this card (Frizz), people will play dragon decks. I have not rated any card.

Quote from Kill_Dash_Nine >>

It's playable at 4 mana. I don't think people really understand what meta defining actually means. It means a card that an entire deck will be around and people will need to play decks that counter it. This is not even close. First it only effects dragons in your deck and not hand. It's effect is going to be slow unless your deck has lots of draw. Even then for the stats it's playable but not great. Will mainly see play for combo decks. I think it will be too slow in the meta. If the card said hand and deck it would be a playable but far from an auto include in dragon decks.

 No.

Meta-defining means: Define the meta. When dragon-decks are garbage, and by printing this card, all of a sudden everyone plays dragon decks, this card is meta-defining. The meta is the state of the game, which decks are played and which are not.

What you described is a build-around card, like C'Thun. There is a single card, usually powerful, so that you build you deck around it. But if no one plays said deck, it is not meta-defining.

Usually, powerful build-around cards happen to be meta-defining, but arent't necessarily. Frizz Kindleroost seems to be both.

1 out of 36 is 2.78 %. As you can't discover the same card twice, the fireball lethal probability playing the scoundrel was: 1/39+1/38+1/37+1/36 (mystery choice) = 10.38 %. Better than 1 in 10, very far from "0.0278 %". (yeah i know you just fucked up the multiply by 100 thing, just wanted to point out the total fireball lethal chance)

Never ever. Time is precious.

Quote from elbkind >>

Am I the only one who didn't received the packs yet?

 yes

Quote from Kaladin >>

Quote from tekkenpro >>

Quote from Kaladin >>

The wording of that rule suggests they're referring to third party software/tools, not talking about a game with friends.  

I think the last part is the important one. And I think "any other user an advantage" isn't suggesting anything at all.
And having someone telling you what to do is an advantage.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's totally fine to do that in a non-tournament-environment, it's fun to do, and it's tolerated by blizzard. But technically, in terms of blizzard's end user licence agreement - it's cheating.

 

 What part of that is giving one player an advantage?  Anyone can chat about strategy during a game.  edit: The game itself allows you to spectate your friends, it seems really ridiculous if they'd expect you to not discuss the game during spectating. 

 Alright. You have no technical advantage or anything over the other player. You are right. Because you play as "party vs party", although most "parties" will consist of one player.
It only changes for tournament play, because than "party" becomes "individual person".

Quote from Kaladin >>

The wording of that rule suggests they're referring to third party software/tools, not talking about a game with friends.  

I think the last part is the important one. And I think "any other user an advantage" isn't suggesting anything at all.
And having someone telling you what to do is an advantage.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's totally fine to do that in a non-tournament-environment, it's fun to do, and it's tolerated by blizzard. But technically, in terms of blizzard's end user licence agreement - it's cheating.

Theres actually a clear answer: It IS cheating. But only during a tournament.
Blizzard says it loud and clear in the Tournament Handbook ( https://playhearthstone.com/en-us/esports/programs/rules-and-policies ):
Point 7.11.ii:
7.11 Cheating.
(a) Players must compete to the best of their ability at all times and may not break Tournament or
Player Handbook rules or omit information from tournament officials in order to try to or gain
an advantage. Any form of cheating will not be tolerated. Cheating includes, but is not limited
to:
ii. Providing or seeking match advice from another person during a match. Team tournaments
that explicitly allow team communication are an exception to this rule. Press obligations
are also an exception to this rule.

But this is only valid for tournament play. For ladder play, the blizzard end user license agreement should be used, and i will quote Doomer_22:

Quote from Doomer_22 >>

Technically speaking, this is prohibited under rule 1.C.ii.1 of the Blizzard end user license agreement (cheats; i.e. methods not expressly authorized by Blizzard, influencing and/or facilitating the gameplay, including exploits of any in-game bugs, and thereby granting you and/or any other user an advantage over other players not using such methods;)

I can't say for sure if Blizzard has expressly authorized people to cooperate on ladder, but I think it's safe to say that this is tolerated by Blizzard 

 And i agree. It's technically cheating, but tolerated / allowed, because it's fun and erveyone can do it, and there is not much on the line (except high legend ladder finishes)